If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Roman Empire is in CK2. It is the Byzantine Empire. Do you mean the ancient Roman Empire ala Augustus Caesar? In that case you would have military governors who act as little despots in their provinces, and a scheming senate which is not really feasible with current game mechanics.

It depends which period of Roman imperial history we're talking about. For most of its history the Roman Empire did not have 'max crown authority' - in the third century, it had the equivalent of 'autonomous vassals'. Likewise, the system of provincial government after Diocletian and Constantine was much more rigidly organised and centrally directed that it was under the Augustan principate. In the first century, most cities and local regions were effectively autonomous, with only a very thin layer of Roman provincial government laid on top; by the fifth century, that had changed drastically, and Roman provincial government was an immensely complex bureaucratic and military machine.

Yeah the empire if converted into game terms would have higher crown authority as it went on I suppose and was at its maximum arguably with the caesarpapism of the emperors in Constantinople. Maybe maxing out between Heraclius and Alexios I. The early principate was all about a decentralized faux-republican system. The emperor often left the most populous/civilized provinces to rule themselves or be ruled by senatorial officers, while imperial command was kept to frontiers where the legions were. The exception to this being Egypt as it was and held by the emperor personally all the way back to Augustus. The emperor's supreme, though informal position as princeps was guaranteed ultimately through his command of the legions (which wasn't always secure) and his control of the food supply via Egypt.

This same informality of the principate contributed to its collapse in the 3rd century.

That being said, the more I think about it the more it can be argued that the CK2 "crown authority" mechanics don't realistically represent the empire at any point. Even in the most decentralized eras the emperor's authority pretty much trumped what a typical Western medieval king could ever hope of mustering. Also what about when the Western Empire collapsed? In de jure terms the western empire continued as Odoacer recognized Zeno as THE Roman Emperor. Did Zeno have autonomous authority in the west and high in the east? In a way he did if you think about it. Political authority in any state in real life can be very fluid and unequally applied.

You would need Appointment succession for vassals to be even remotely close to the real thing.

This. The emperor decided who became governor and the governor regined for a limited amount of time before being replaced. The governors was chosen from among the senatorial class, which CK2 dosnt have anything equivalent of. The closest would be dynasties with high prestige or alot of gold.

The emperor was also pontifex maximus (religious head) so a CK2 character would have both the emperor title and the highest title of his religion. Thats pre-christianity anyway.

Actually there is another, the Holy Roman Empire. (The ERE might not always have agreed with that (even when at times they did acknowledge the Imperial status), but from a Catholic POV they were. Ofcourse other Catholic monarchies reconnected with the (local) Roman heritage.)

Charlemagne, Otto the Great, Frederick Barbarossa, Henry VI beg to differ, some Emperors from the post great interregnum era were personally powerful too, but by that point the Empire itself had begun its long decline.
OTOH the Byzantine Empire also ended as a pathetic joke from its former glory, within the period covered by CK2, whereas most of the decline of the HRE was in the period covered by EU4.

The Roman Empire is in CK2. It is the Byzantine Empire. Do you mean the ancient Roman Empire ala Augustus Caesar? In that case you would have military governors who act as little despots in their provinces, and a scheming senate which is not really feasible with current game mechanics.

I think Senate could be simulated with faction mechanics. I don't know if it's possible to mod in more factions.

Actually there is another, the Holy Roman Empire. (The ERE might not always have agreed with that (even when at times they did acknowledge the Imperial status), but from a Catholic POV they were. Ofcourse other Catholic monarchies reconnected with the (local) Roman heritage.)

Did they still believe that even after the Donation of Constantine was finally accepted as fraudulent?

Charlemagne, Otto the Great, Frederick Barbarossa, Henry VI beg to differ, some Emperors from the post great interregnum era were personally powerful too, but by that point the Empire itself had begun its long decline.
OTOH the Byzantine Empire also ended as a pathetic joke from its former glory, within the period covered by CK2, whereas most of the decline of the HRE was in the period covered by EU4.

I was referring the way you implied HRE was even remotely on the level of Byzantium when it comes to legitimacy as a Roman state. The HRE was just a fabrication hastily mashed by the Pope in his secular greed.

I was referring the way you implied HRE was even remotely on the level of Byzantium when it comes to legitimacy as a Roman state. The HRE was just a fabrication hastily mashed by the Pope in his secular greed.

But it was legitimates because the Byzantines had a woman on the throne. In the Wester POV this me ans the Roman Emperor was vacant and Byzanz loses his legitimacy.

But it was legitimates because the Byzantines had a woman on the throne. In the Wester POV this me ans the Roman Emperor was vacant and Byzanz loses his legitimacy.

The Byzantines were Romans so it was entirely their business to decide who can be on the throne. You can't just tell someone else that they have lost their legitimacy because of some thing they themselves decided. The Byzantines were cool with Irene so Irene was then a legitimate Empress.

The Byzantines were Romans so it was entirely their business to decide who can be on the throne. You can't just tell someone else that they have lost their legitimacy because of some thing they themselves decided. The Byzantines were cool with Irene so Irene was then a legitimate Empress.

Agreed.

Good thing HRE wasn't really in the same time spans as the Russian, Chinese and Japanese Empresses. Otherwise the Holy Roman-Russian-Chinese-Japanese Empire could claim that those Emperor titles were also vacant since they had women on the throne (Catherine, Wu Zetian, Suiko).